Coronavirus II

[Alpo]

Interesting report on Italy and the soccer match held in Milan between Bergamo and the Spaniards. 40,000 from Bergamo attended. Apparently that was the most affected area within Italy. Close proximity. Kissing and hugging in the general enthusiasm. The results? One might draw a conclusion that the events at the soccer meet might be why Italy shows greater numbers than China.

The opposing soccer team had 2500 members present at the stadium. Spain's Covid rate is climbing as well

https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...match-italy-linked-epicenter-deadly-outbreak/

 

[dusty88]

What? I didn’t say Trump only gets his information from such sources. I saw the press conference live. He had a an expert right there saying that it’s premature to claim those meds were effective. And Trump was right there saying they were. So he had an expert on the same stage, yet Trump couldn’t defer to the expert. Sometimes the people you respect are full of ****. It’s good to be able to admit when they are. Trump was full if ****. Not on everything. But in that he was full of **** for overriding an expert in the field with his own irrational beliefs.

Agreed

All a president needs to do in this crisis is show some leadership, admit that it's a crisis and he can't even do that. He was comparing this to the flu just last week on Twitter. Pence is a much better example: praises and defers to other people. Trump's ineptness is going to cost thousands more lives because so many people were following his lead when he tried to make this to be no big deal. In the end, it will also hurt the economy more than if we had dealt with it head on.

The briefings should now be given by Fauci or some other scientist, the way Schwarzkopf gave briefings during the Gulf War.

 

[dusty88]

This story probably makes me more anxious than anything. I otherwise feel legitimately concerned. I am trying to be prepared that this will hit my parents. Even though they are self-isolating they will sooner or later have medical needs.

I had not even thought about the reality of the infected person dying alone, nor the reality of the grieving spouse being alone for 2 weeks after. No funerals for the family to gather and resolve the loss of a patriarch

https://www.kansascity.com/news/cor...3-6iMT549yKvlt6l-sEsCD-x9XRPpjeZ5zcv3WG3bbU2o

 

[smokingman]

This story probably makes me more anxious than anything. I otherwise feel legitimately concerned. I am trying to be prepared that this will hit my parents. Even though they are self-isolating they will sooner or later have medical needs.

I had not even thought about the reality of the infected person dying alone, nor the reality of the grieving spouse being alone for 2 weeks after. No funerals for the family to gather and resolve the loss of a patriarch

https://www.kansascity.com/news/cor...3-6iMT549yKvlt6l-sEsCD-x9XRPpjeZ5zcv3WG3bbU2o

I have asked people to prepare for this,as it will most likely be more common than having a funeral with even immediate family.
We need to adjust our grief process. And as in her case deal with the fact we may have to grieve alone.

None of this is going to be easy.

Be well,be safe,you are loved.

 

[jamil]

https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/2...rties-could-turn-the-tide-of-the-wuhan-virus/

When you see the headline you think, are they out of their ****ing minds? But it's worth a read. And it's a valid argument,. I'm not sure it's a sound argument.

If people who've recovered from this indeed cannot spread it to other people; and if we could identify all the people who can shrug this off, and infected just them, in a way where they wouldn't infect the vulnerable; and if that number of people infected were enough to confer herd immunity once they recover; and if herd immunity would indeed protect the masses; then yes, this could stop pandemic spread. And not only that. All the people who have recovered from this already are no threat to anyone. They can go back to work. Have a social life to the extent that it's possible in this climate. They're no longer a risk.

So I accept the logic of the argument, but the soundness remains to be proven. Short of answering all the "if's" I think the present strategy is probably the soundest. We continue to avoid being around other people to try to flatten the curve. And that kinda means we get a ****ed up economy.

But then there's this:

https://www.wdrb.com/kentuckian-tes...cle_93ee3db8-6e14-11ea-80d9-077c8cb6d464.html

Having accepted the logical argument The Federalist put forth, notwithstanding the dependency on questions unanswered, I guess I would reserve my anger about it unless this was done irresponsibly, that is, in a way that could infect vulnerable people, and not just the healthy young people who will recover without problems. The articles I've read about this coronavirus party don't give a lot of detail. So I don't know if the party was about "I'm invincible so **** you," or if it was, "hey, I'm healthy, I don't think It'll be a problem for me. I'll quarantine myself after, and then when I recover, I'm no longer a threat to anyone". But c'mon. These are millennials we're talking about. I'm not confident it's much of the latter, and probably nearly all the former. So maybe I'm a little pissed at these foolish little **********s who went back home to their parents, after fondling door knobs, cabinets, refrigerator handles, on their way back down to the basement.

 

[jamil]

I have asked people to prepare for this,as it will most likely be more common than having a funeral with even immediate family.
We need to adjust our grief process. And as in her case deal with the fact we may have to grieve alone.

None of this is going to be easy.

Be well,be safe,you are loved.

It is beyond ridiculous not to remove deceased people from their homes in a timely manner. It may be that loved ones remaining don't get to have the funeral they need for closure. It may be that immediate cremation is best. But leaving a dead spouse for 2 weeks is unacceptable. Surely they can be retrieved safely with proper PPE. I know that's in short supply. Hopefully the panic stricken Amazon shoppers who bought up all the tyvec suits, and eventually catch it anyway, don't have to live with their dead spouse for two weeks while their tyvec suit still sits in the box it came in.

 

[SwikLS]

how can hospitals not be overwhelmed with 3/4 of a million plus flu hospitalizations every year but does get overwhelmed with 50K Wuhan virus infections. None of this makes sense.

we're being had people. this is coordinated effort to further socialize America over a new virus that isn't that deadly. never let a crisis go to waste.

 

[smokingman]

It is beyond ridiculous not to remove deceased people from their homes in a timely manner. It may be that loved ones remaining don't get to have the funeral they need for closure. It may be that immediate cremation is best. But leaving a dead spouse for 2 weeks is unacceptable. Surely they can be retrieved safely with proper PPE. I know that's in short supply. Hopefully the panic stricken Amazon shoppers who bought up all the tyvec suits, and eventually catch it anyway, don't have to live with their dead spouse for two weeks while their tyvec suit still sits in the box it came in.

I agree with you 100%
It is something that needs planned for now rather than later. Cases have already happened in California and Florida where someone lived alone as well and died from covid-19.

This topic though horrible needs to have a some serious solutions,and soon.

I do not think any current system can handle it.

 

[smokingman]

how can hospitals not be overwhelmed with 3/4 of a million plus flu hospitalizations every year but does get overwhelmed with 50K Wuhan virus infections. None of this makes sense.

we're being had people. this is coordinated effort to further socialize America over a new virus that isn't that deadly. never let a crisis go to waste.

Just did a quick google. Average hospital stay for the flu is 5.3 days. The average stay for covid-19 is 12 days so over double the time of a flu case.
https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/covid-hospitals

Also this is spread more easily than the flu. More than 10 times as deadly as the flu.
Why do you think we have been had?

 

[Ziggidy]

What? I didn’t say Trump only gets his information from such sources. I saw the press conference live. He had a an expert right there saying that it’s premature to claim those meds were effective. And Trump was right there saying they were. So he had an expert on the same stage, yet Trump couldn’t defer to the expert. Sometimes the people you respect are full of ****. It’s good to be able to admit when they are. Trump was full if ****. Not on everything. But in that he was full of **** for overriding an expert in the field with his own irrational beliefs.

I believe the scientist was sayng they do not have the data to difinately say it is effective as a cure or treatment. Trump was speaking about the positive outcomes they were seeing and was hopeful that it was going to eventually be labeled as a treatment and such. The scientist is following protocol, the same protocol that puts the USA behind other countries when it comes to released pharmicuticals and treatments. Trump is being optimistic and showing it. The scientist is being data driven but if you listen closely, he will say it seems to be working BUT they need data, a lot more data before they can make any official determination.

I'll stick with Trump on this one. Until otherwise proven ineffective or dangerous, it's the best we have at the moment and it is working in many patients accross the globe. I would ask for it in a heartbeat for any person in my family.

 

[jamil]

how can hospitals not be overwhelmed with 3/4 of a million plus flu hospitalizations every year but does get overwhelmed with 50K Wuhan virus infections. None of this makes sense.

we're being had people. this is coordinated effort to further socialize America over a new virus that isn't that deadly. never let a crisis go to waste.

Many hospitalizations for the flu is because of dehidration. Some develop complications, like pneumonia. This isn't the flu. If this is a coordinated effort to socialize America, who is coordinating it? Where is your evidence for this coordination? It couldn't happen without a conspiracy. Where's your evidence that there is a conspiracy?

It may not make sense to you. There are a lot of things that don't make sense to most of us. But we don't even know what we don't know. There's a lot of misinformation out there. It's hard to know what reality is right now. But do you think that people aren't actually dying? Or that no one is critically ill from this? So the stories about couples having to live with dead family members in their homes for days or weeks, is fake news?

It would be a lot easier to believe that all this was a hoax. That's more palatable than death. But the easiest things to believe aren't always the truest.

 

[SwikLS]

But we don't even know what we don't know. There's a lot of misinformation out there.

You just made the case for not shutting everything down and carrying on normally.

 

[jamil]

I believe the scientist was sayng they do not have the data to difinately say it is effective as a cure or treatment. Trump was speaking about the positive outcomes they were seeing and was hopeful that it was going to eventually be labeled as a treatment and such. The scientist is following protocol, the same protocol that puts the USA behind other countries when it comes to released pharmicuticals and treatments. Trump is being optimistic and showing it. The scientist is being data driven but if you listen closely, he will say it seems to be working BUT they need data, a lot more data before they can make any official determination.

I'll stick with Trump on this one. Until otherwise proven ineffective or dangerous, it's the best we have at the moment and it is working in many patients accross the globe. I would ask for it in a heartbeat for any person in my family.

The day I saw that press conference, I had just read about a study that compared outcomes of patients with COVID-19.This was not a clinical study. It was a statistical study comparing the outcomes of patients who took the drug and people who didn't. The study concluded that there was no statistical difference in outcomes, but deeper clinical research is needed.

I think Dr Fauci was trying to help Trump recover from trying to state wild-ass unsubstantiated claims. He did that job fairly well, saying that Trump was "optimistic" about the drug, while he was saying, let's prove it's a safe and effective treatment before we go giving people false hope. I'll put my faith in what the research says. At this point, i don't know if it's effective or safe for treating this COVID-19. I'm not putting my faith in a politician who has consistently demonstrated an inability to admit anything might be wrong in his own estimation of himself. At this point I want the president to be a leader, but also be able to recognize and admit everything that's true, everything that's not true, and especially be able to admit when we just don't know.

I mean WTFH? Dr Fauci just finishes saying that it's too early to tell if Chloroquine is a game changer or not, then Trump drags his dick into the conversation to say it is. AS IF HE KNOWS MORE THAN THAN THE SCIENTIST! Man, I get it that you like Trump. I'm not a hater. But c'mon. This is obvious stuff here. I hate the reputation dammage Trump does to himself with **** like this. Let's not give people hope in something before there's a clear reason to have hope. It just further chips away at his reputation. It's an unforced error. Now, if it turns out the statistical study was correct, and that Chloroquine isn't a game changer, people take note. But worse, the press will have a field day with this. And I suppose if that happens, Trumpers will be claiming that the press is hiding it's success. Because. You know. Trump can't possibly ever be wrong about anything. Jeez. WTF?

 

[smokingman]

3.28 million new unemployed. Does not include data from the past week.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/unemployment-claims-hit-3-million-last-week-n1169266

These numbers are just "the tip of the iceberg," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Grant Thornton, noting that these figures do not even include data from this week.

 

[T.Lex]

Interesting report on Italy and the soccer match held in Milan between Bergamo and the Spaniards. 40,000 from Bergamo attended. Apparently that was the most affected area within Italy. Close proximity. Kissing and hugging in the general enthusiasm. The results? One might draw a conclusion that the events at the soccer meet might be why Italy shows greater numbers than China.

The opposing soccer team had 2500 members present at the stadium. Spain's Covid rate is climbing as well

https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...match-italy-linked-epicenter-deadly-outbreak/

Yeah, I posted on that yesterday, but without the link, because my sense is that INGOers don't care much for soccer.

I don't know if the NCAA and NBA had that data when they shut things down, but I'm sure they are looking at that as further support for their decision.

That's the way I see it, too.

Which leads to....

So somewhere in the "flu" range to double.

CDC also estimates deaths in the United States using mathematical modeling. CDC estimates that from 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, influenza-associated deaths in the United States ranged from a low of 12,000 (during 2011-2012) to a high of 56,000 (during 2012-2013)

Sorry, but not equal to the damage of killing the economy...

how can hospitals not be overwhelmed with 3/4 of a million plus flu hospitalizations every year but does get overwhelmed with 50K Wuhan virus infections. None of this makes sense.

we're being had people. this is coordinated effort to further socialize America over a new virus that isn't that deadly. never let a crisis go to waste.

You just made the case for not shutting everything down and carrying on normally.

No, it isn't. Unless the goal is "herd immunity" at the cost of the weakest in the herd.

But, that's not our society (well, for the most part, obviously).

It is odd to keep having to refute this flu analogy but I guess we need to. Along with what was mentioned upthread, we know how the flu spreads and how to treat it. The mortality rate is low, even though the raw numbers are high. Most of the USian population is exposed to at least 1 flu strain every year. Let's call it 300,000,000. That's a .02% morality rate for 60,000 deaths (which is the high end). We also have vaccines and effective treatments (e.g., Tamiflu).

Rational people make decisions based on available information. We don't have ALL the information on COVID-19, but - from where I sit - the people making decisions did so with the best information available. That's really about all you can ask for.

The effects on the economy are what they are. Unchecked, the effects on the economy would've been worse. Look at the unemployment numbers and change the label to hospitalized, and that becomes an estimate.

 

[SwikLS]

for all you in the mass hysteria bubble if these unemployment numbers don't jolt you out of it, nothing will.

 

[T.Lex]

for all you in the mass hysteria bubble if these unemployment numbers don't jolt you out of it, nothing will.

No one here is in a mass hysteria bubble.

For those in denial about this, I would only ask if you understand exponential growth.

 

[Ziggidy]

The day I saw that press conference, I had just read about a study that compared outcomes of patients with COVID-19.This was not a clinical study. It was a statistical study comparing the outcomes of patients who took the drug and people who didn't. The study concluded that there was no statistical difference in outcomes, but deeper clinical research is needed.

I think Dr Fauci was trying to help Trump recover from trying to state wild-ass unsubstantiated claims. He did that job fairly well, saying that Trump was "optimistic" about the drug, while he was saying, let's prove it's a safe and effective treatment before we go giving people false hope. I'll put my faith in what the research says. At this point, i don't know if it's effective or safe for treating this COVID-19. I'm not putting my faith in a politician who has consistently demonstrated an inability to admit anything might be wrong in his own estimation of himself. At this point I want the president to be a leader, but also be able to recognize and admit everything that's true, everything that's not true, and especially be able to admit when we just don't know.

I mean WTFH? Dr Fauci just finishes saying that it's too early to tell if Chloroquine is a game changer or not, then Trump drags his dick into the conversation to say it is. AS IF HE KNOWS MORE THAN THAN THE SCIENTIST! Man, I get it that you like Trump. I'm not a hater. But c'mon. This is obvious stuff here. I hate the reputation dammage Trump does to himself with **** like this. Let's not give people hope in something before there's a clear reason to have hope. It just further chips away at his reputation. It's an unforced error. Now, if it turns out the statistical study was correct, and that Chloroquine isn't a game changer, people take note. But worse, the press will have a field day with this. And I suppose if that happens, Trumpers will be claiming that the press is hiding it's success. Because. You know. Trump can't possibly ever be wrong about anything. Jeez. WTF?

I heard Trump state many times that he was hopeful. He stated that it may or may not work but it seems to have positive results in others around the world. He did not claim it was "the" drug...only that we was hopeful. I'll take "hopeful" over waiting for 18 months of data to be gathered before we know definitely.

 

[jamil]

You just made the case for not shutting everything down and carrying on normally.

No. I didn't. We do know some things. We know people die from this at a few times the rate of the flu. We know from published, peer reviewed studies, that it can cause your immune system to attack the lungs, which is a serious condition. We know approximately what the mortality rates are by age group. We know it has a R0 of way higher than the flu so it spreads much quicker.

I think at this point, the question isn't that we don't know enough to make the decision to shut things down. It's more that we don't know enough not to shut it down.

But. As I said earlier in the case to selectively infect people, I think answers to those questions should be sought out. We have a small population of people who have fully recovered from infection, and those people are harmless to society now. So, is there a demographic which we can be certain will not have a lasting impact from getting this virus? If that's the case, and those people can be isolated while they have it, it is a logical way to put them back in society as full participants in the economy.

The problem right now is that because we all have loved ones we don't want to see die, and maybe even in ourselves we're not certain we could make it through an infection, we stay home. It's that uncertainty that's causing pandemic experts to suggest this isolation. And it's that uncertainty that's causing politicians to heed that advice. And it's that uncertainty that's causing most of us to comply voluntarily to the extent that we have. And if you really don't believe there's anything to this, that it's all just a hoax, you still can be responsible while disbelieving. In case it's not a hoax, don't put other people at risk through your actions. When your out and about, interacting closely with other people, you can become infected without knowing it. And you can spread it to other people without having symptoms for up to two weeks. So just be careful while doubting.

 

[jamil]

I heard Trump state many times that he was hopeful. He stated that it may or may not work but it seems to have positive results in others around the world. He did not claim it was "the" drug...only that we was hopeful. I'll take "hopeful" over waiting for 18 months of data to be gathered before we know definitely.

What does "I'll take 'hopeful'" even mean? I mean in a practical way. I mean. It sounds more positive than, let's wait and see if it is effective. So if it's just about messaging, well, okay. But then we're still waiting for 18 months to have the drug approved for this use. And I'm not opposed to fast-tracking it. It's not like there's a shortage of people to try the stuff on. If they're about ready to breath their last, what's it gonna hurt, right? But, it's a false hope to claim much beyond let's wait and see how hopeful it actually is before we call it hopeful. Especially with the studies that are now suggesting that it's not all that hopeful.